Saturday, September 4, 2010

No Surprise: City Close Park 6 for 45 Days


Thomas Holmes, owner of Park 6, stand on the street in front popular Night Club
It should come as no surprise that a Downtown nightclub owner Thomas Holmes, owner of Park 6, will get his liquor license back after a 45-day suspension as part of a forced agreement reached between him and the city.
The night before the hearing, Holmes told the Insider News that the city wanted to close him down for 40 days, but he feared that if he tried to fight them to remain open his license would be revoked.
The city's Public Safety and Licensing Committee scheduled the due process hearing for Holmes’ bar, which caters to a primarily African-American clientele. He agreed to the settlement offered in fear of losing his business if he did not agree. Holmes also told the Insider News that he will lose close to $20,000 because of the closing. He also said that he was not sure how things will be once he re-opens.
The daily paper reported that Thomas Binger, an attorney hired to represent the city, reached the agreement with Holmes and his attorney after weeks of negotiations. "The suspension that is in place will close Park 6's door for a relatively significant period of time," Binger said. The paper also reported that Holmes waived his right to appear at the due process hearing Thursday. As part of the agreement, Holmes accepted the city's finding that he operated "a disorderly or riotous, indecent or improper house," as defined by state law.
Many feel the committee has been out to close the popular club after a situation turned dangerous on May 20 when a stray bullet struck a security officer outside of Park 6. While initial reports suggested suspects were arrested in a car stopped in Kenosha after the incident, the shooting remains under investigation and no charges have been filed. In short, police don’t know what happened that night.
Days after the incident, the Committee quickly voted to take Park 6 to due process which would close his doors before the police investigation was completed. Some believe that forcing Holmes to agree to a charge of running a disorderly or riotous, indecent, or improper house is an attempt by the heavy-handed committee to save face for their rush judgment.
In recent months, lot of effort has gone into making a case to close the bar. On one occasion the Racine Police Department’s surveillance van was parked near Park 6 filming patrons as they went in and out of the bar. Also, several people have been observed recording the crowd near Park and Sixth streets from a parked vehicle. In July, a video crew was spotted on top of a nearby building. Most recently Holmes said he was issued a citation for under-age patrons, which were ticketed several blocks from his establishment who told the police that they had came out of Park 6. These actions have Holmes feeling like the city is out to get him.
In a NAACP report that has met public scrutiny over its unauthorized release, states that there seems to be an effort by Racine city officials to drive Blacks out of the downtown area.
Holmes’ agreement with the city puts him in a bad position. It give officials 45 days to look deeper into the problem that many feel is a law enforcement issue rather than the bar owners’. The city-acquired attorney hinted this when he spoke before the committee, "It will give us a good idea what issues that are present in that area of town are the result of Park 6 or may be the result of other causes." This also shows a weakness in the case that they city developed against Homes.
Although Alderman Aron Wisneski, the committee's chairman, thinks the agreement is a fair deal for both parties involved, we greatly disagree.
The forced agreement was a win-win for the city only. But for the Black community it was unfair and a foreseeable problem.
First with police walking the downtown location on weekends, there had already begun an improvement in the area. These actions by the Chief of Police, we feel was not allowed to come to fruition.
Some others feel that the city is trying to dodge its responsibility to the African-American community. “If someone has a headache, you don’t cut off their head,” one suggested. Is the city really trying to solve the downtown issues, or are they trying to put a bandaid on the wound by punishing Park 6?
But what worries many other bar owners is whether or not the closing of Park 6 will put a new burden on their own establishments. Will the patrons leave the downtown area and find other places to go or will they over crowd the other well visited downtown bars?
The committee's recommendation still has to be approved by the City Council next month.
What do you think? We would like to hear from you.